6-19-09, 10:10 am

Original source: Vietnam News Agency

Contrary to most predictions, the militant Shiite group Hezbollah and its allies did not win the Lebanese parliamentary election last Sunday.

The unexpected triumph for the pro-Western March 14 Alliance, led by Sunni politician Saad al-Hariri, the son of assassinated former Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri, has provided much relief to many in the West, especially the United States, which lists Hezbollah as a terrorist group.

The election outcome more or less assures that, for the time being, there will be no dramatic political changes in the country. A victory for Hezbollah could have added more fuel to the smouldering fire of political and sectarian tension, both internally and regionally.

The March 14 Alliance’s win is, however, considered largely a symbolic victory, rather than one of strategic importance. The reality of the power struggle is much more complex and can’t be solved by elections alone.

Now, Sad al-Hariri and other leaders in his Alliance face the tough task of forming a government that can avoid internal power struggles that have plunged the country into a 18-month political impasse.

If past history is any indication, the forming of a cabinet could be almost as hair raising as the election itself.

Analysts said the election outcome was a setback for Hezbollah, but not a political defeat. The opposition still maintains a strong presence in parliament.

Final results gave Hariri’s March 14 coalition, which includes Sunni, Christian and Druze parties, 71 seats against 57 for the Hezbollah-led alliance, known as the March 8. The new leader, of course, will be from the majority bloc.

In fact, the numbers are similar to those in the outgoing legislature.

In 2005, the March 14 Alliance won in similar fashion. There was only one seat difference – 70 for March 14 and 58 for the opposition.

The fact that Lebanon has been governed by a pro-Western government headed by Prime Minister Fouad Siniora for the past four years did not prevent Hezbollah from spreading its wings politically and militarily throughout the country. It has retained its position as the most powerful opposition faction.

Although a defeat has affected its political weight, Hezbollah is probably quite comfortable with the status quo now.

Mid-East expert Paul Salem, director of the Beirut-based Carnegie Middle East Centre, wrote in Foreign Policy that losing the election might actually serve Hezbollah’s purpose.

The group is well aware of a host of problems if it had won, of which the most imminent is the possible suspension or dramatic decline of large-scale economic aid from the US, European and Arab countries who support Hariri’s bloc.

Hezbollah obviously does not want to meet the same fate as Palestine’s Hamas and be thrown into political and economic isolation.

'If international support were to decline, it would spell serious trouble for a Lebanon already struggling to avoid widespread unemployment and economic collapse. In addition, despite its populist rhetoric, a Hezbollah-led government would be hard-pressed to broaden social programmes and reduce taxes,' Salem wrote.

Hezbollah’s most important priority is to secure enough political clout to maintain the alliance’s veto power in the government so that it can fend itself off the year-long call for disarmament under a UN Security Council resolution following the 2006 war with Israel.

The struggle to gain veto power triggered month long political crisis that boiled over into deadly street clashes last May and ended up with the Doha agreement in which Hezbollah got it wanted – ended its boycott of the government in exchange for a veto power in the cabinet

The role of Hezbollah’s guerrilla army, which is more powerful than Lebanon’s national army, has always been a major cause of concern.

March 14 leaders have persistently called for a state monopoly on arms, but Hezbollah, the only Lebanese militia allowed to retain its arms after the 1975-1990 civil war, has always insisted its weaponry is not up for discussion.

Immediately after the vote, despite showing willingness to join a national unity government, Hezbollah lawmaker Mohammad Raad said the majority must 'not question our role as a resistance party (or) the legitimacy of our weapons arsenal'.

Hariri has repeatedly ruled out the possibility of granting the minority opposition veto power, which used to lead to the obstruction of all key government decisions. For this reason, Lebanon still does not have a budget for this year. It should have been approved more than six months ago.

But analysts doubt that he can achieve his aim. They say the real election was in the streets last May, which Hezbollah won. That defined the power structure that followed the Doha agreement and is going to continue, whatever government is formed.

According to professor Hilal Khashan from the American University of Sirut, the elections have not changed anything on the ground.

He said the March 14’s majority can’t be translated into real political assets because Lebanon is governed 'by accommodation'. This means the need for all sides to compromise within a pan-sectarian governance structure.

The March 14 Alliance certainly does not want to see a repetition of the political impasse. So, a similar scenario of a unity government in which Hezbollah and its allies hold veto power over key decisions looks set to re-emerge.